9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent, even then the least that was expected from him was to have maintained some accounts. There is no illegality with the orders passed by the learned Court below whereby the respondent has been acquitted - even the presumption as is attached to the Negotiable Instruments Act under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act is of no assistance to the appellant. Appeal dismissed. - Cr. Appeal No. 406 of 2018. - - - Dated:- 25-3-2019 - Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. For the Appellant : Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. ORDER TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JUDGE (ORAL) The appellant is the complainant, who aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent in a case inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt/complainant to file the instant appeal. 5. It is vehemently contended by Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are perverse as it has failed to take into consideration the presumption attached to the Negotiable Instrument under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act as the accused/respondent has not been able to dispel such presumption by establishing probable defence whereby the onus would again shifted to the complainant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently argue that since a false case has been fastened against the respondent, therefore, he is rightly acquitted by the learned Court below. I have heard the learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him. 1 [ 139. Presumption in favour of holder.- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.] 8. In Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Hon ble Supreme Court has reiterated and summarized the principles relating to presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and rebuttal thereof in the following manner: 26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent-claimant that the presumpt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. 28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 , the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities . Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
